WHAT ARE YOU THINKING ABOUT? (GAME DEVELOPMENT EDITION)
Posts
I am almost done my second dungeon and have designed/programmed the skill sets for 20 characters
and just decided that a standardized skill pool for both enemies and players would be more intuitive and beneficial to the game as a whole.
please take this gun and shoot me
EDIT: (This should actually be fairly easy once I staple down the new skill list. I have all the coding for the funky stuff done, and some of the enemy AI programmed for stuff like buffing/debuffing, so this should work just fine. It's mostly just a shame to throw away the 100 unique skills I did for the party already.)
and just decided that a standardized skill pool for both enemies and players would be more intuitive and beneficial to the game as a whole.
please take this gun and shoot me
EDIT: (This should actually be fairly easy once I staple down the new skill list. I have all the coding for the funky stuff done, and some of the enemy AI programmed for stuff like buffing/debuffing, so this should work just fine. It's mostly just a shame to throw away the 100 unique skills I did for the party already.)
To translate: creating a player-monster parallel (They use Agidyne, I use Agidyne) allows the player to quickly grasp threats, and can form a stronger base for customization.
"Standardized" only means boring if you let it mean boring.
"Standardized" only means boring if you let it mean boring.
But, lots of SMT titles have enemy-specific and player-specific skills, even in games with Demon recruitment.
Yes but those would be the exception, not the rule. I am all for player-enemy parity. In many of my games PCs and NPCs ("monsters") even structure their equipment and therefore attributes the same way.
***
In general, I wonder why I continue to make games. It makes no sense logically (I don't get paid or compensated for it, financially or otherwise, and while it is certainly fun to do, it is less fun than it is stressful). It's almost like this strange, inexplicable compulsion that cannot be overcome.
***
In general, I wonder why I continue to make games. It makes no sense logically (I don't get paid or compensated for it, financially or otherwise, and while it is certainly fun to do, it is less fun than it is stressful). It's almost like this strange, inexplicable compulsion that cannot be overcome.
I used to get overwhelmed, since I felt that gam mak was indeed less fun than it was stressful. Then I said "why the fuck do I try to make games that follow RPG policies or genre expectations or etc.;" with Promised Abyss I'm just making the game I want to make while still holding it to a high standard (insert <Nightblade> HIGH QUALITY here).
Granted, I have the scripting knowledge to actually make the game that I want to make; being able to jump into the code and change a few lines (or write an entire script) to do something is incredibly useful, and is one of the reasons why 2k3 is pretty much the worst toolkit in the history of ever, period. (I haven't bothered looking at DynRPG because there is literally no reason for Cherry and his stuff to be relevant other than the extreme force of imagination inertia that is RMNwank.)
basically it's only stressful if you say "WOW THIS IS STRESSFUL" and you stress out about it instead of goin' wit da flow
Granted, I have the scripting knowledge to actually make the game that I want to make; being able to jump into the code and change a few lines (or write an entire script) to do something is incredibly useful, and is one of the reasons why 2k3 is pretty much the worst toolkit in the history of ever, period. (I haven't bothered looking at DynRPG because there is literally no reason for Cherry and his stuff to be relevant other than the extreme force of imagination inertia that is RMNwank.)
basically it's only stressful if you say "WOW THIS IS STRESSFUL" and you stress out about it instead of goin' wit da flow
I said fuck it and mostly stopped caring what other people wanted from MY gams around the switch to VX. This decision was not well received. LOL.
Also I did not do super awesome at the not caring part once the games were released. Double LOL.
I hear this about a lotta things in life, most of the time it's bullshit, but not always.
Also I did not do super awesome at the not caring part once the games were released. Double LOL.
basically it's only stressful if you say "WOW THIS IS STRESSFUL" and you stress out about it instead of goin' wit da flow
I hear this about a lotta things in life, most of the time it's bullshit, but not always.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
Well, I think you are just a stress elemental. So all your skills are stress-based. You fill the battlefield with torrents of stress, casting Stressbolt and Stressstrike and Stressaga in every situation. But you also absorb stress, somehow recovering instead of losing energy when hit by it.
...
BRB coding a game with that system
...
BRB coding a game with that system
I am never ever not drawing a dungeon out on paper before trying to map it again. Every time I try to wing it with mapping -- EVERY TIME -- it goes awry.
I MUST. STOP. DOING THIS.
Also I guess this is the reason I've let poor Riftwalker rot on my hard drive for way longer than intended... i-it's just so irritating to clean uuuup. ;__; BUT I GUESS I AM DOING IT NOW SO HURRAH
I MUST. STOP. DOING THIS.
Also I guess this is the reason I've let poor Riftwalker rot on my hard drive for way longer than intended... i-it's just so irritating to clean uuuup. ;__; BUT I GUESS I AM DOING IT NOW SO HURRAH
YOU GO GIRL. GET IT DONE.
i am thinking about "if i want to put out a battle demo, why am i doing absolutely everything productive gamedev-wise that has nothing to do with the battles"
i am thinking about "if i want to put out a battle demo, why am i doing absolutely everything productive gamedev-wise that has nothing to do with the battles"
I'm going to restart all over, and do a new game. Though I do manage to have title screens for GOTA and Liberated Arms, that'll do for later on, when I recollect resources that I might of lost due to my bios fucking my pc.
The main challenge I face is just finding time to work on aspects of my game, around my job and other duties.
But, for a non-lame thought, I'm currently working on the personality system for my game, which should be a large part of the gameplay when it is finished. Basically, I want earlier decisions from the player to 'tally' into later dialogue options, which sounds simple in theory but requires some tricky implementation with the script in practice.
But, for a non-lame thought, I'm currently working on the personality system for my game, which should be a large part of the gameplay when it is finished. Basically, I want earlier decisions from the player to 'tally' into later dialogue options, which sounds simple in theory but requires some tricky implementation with the script in practice.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
Considering putting out a new demo, up through the end of the second dungeon. On the one hand: WHARRGARBL YOU ALREADY HAVE A PERFECTLY FUNCTIONAL DEMO LOCKEZ, RELEASING A NEW "DEMO" EVERY TIME YOU CODE THE NEXT AREA OF THE GAME IS IDIOTIC, YOU ARE GOING TO BECOME PART OF THE PROBLEM. On the other hand, it's been over a year since the first demo because I spent most of that time working on other projects, and the second dungeon is really different from the first (different main character, different skillset, real plotline has started). So it would remind people "oh hey that game hasn't been abandoned" and also show a much clearer picture of the final product.
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
Basically, I want earlier decisions from the player to 'tally' into later dialogue options, which sounds simple in theory but requires some tricky implementation with the script in practice.I definitely think it's neat when the results of the player's choices manifest much later instead of immediately. It keeps the player from just reloading their save from two minutes ago and changing their mind.
Thanks. Yes, a large part of the game's plot revolves around what kind of person the player chooses to make the main character; personality affects relationships with other party members, as well as certain story paths and unlockable content. It's not really a morality system (the player is always basically good), but more of an on-going personality test; how the player does things is as important as what he/she actually does.
In regards to your question, I think releasing a new demo if it is ready is a good idea; it will, as you say, build up enthusiasm for the game and allow you to get feedback for a number of changes (and feedback is gold in this business!)
In regards to your question, I think releasing a new demo if it is ready is a good idea; it will, as you say, build up enthusiasm for the game and allow you to get feedback for a number of changes (and feedback is gold in this business!)
Currently thinking about a battle system idea that came to me out of nowhere the other day. Seems like it would be pretty awesome once implemented. I'm actually taking notes.
I got the idea while thinking about what could make the final battle of what is probably going to be my second RPG, currently titled Knight's Oath, more satisfying. What began as a way to give the last phase of the final boss a gimmick to make it a duel between the hero and the BBEG slowly morphed into something way more complex, something that would have to be the main battle system of its game. And, as a battle system based on duels, it would have a party of one.
If I had to describe it shortly, it's what happens when a JRPG and a fighting game concieve a child. Much like its fighing game parent, it consists of several rock-paper-scissors type decisions done in sequence, but turn based instead of real time.
Picture two swordsmen facing each other. You have four options: attack high, attack low, block high, or block low. Your opponent chooses one of those four options as well, in a double blind scenario. From there, you have five possible outcomes:
- You both block. Nothing happens and the game state is reset.
- You both attack the same area. Your weapons clash and the game state is reset.
- You both attack, but choose different areas. You both take low damage and then the game state resets.
- One player attacks, and the second player blocks the wrong area. The defender takes low damage and the attacker gets to initiate a combo.
- One player attacks, and the defender blocks the attack. The defender gets to do a counterattack.
And why do the initial attacks all deal low damage? That is because the first blow is mostly to take the opponent off balance. See that thing about combos? That's where the real damage is! After landing the first strike, you continue to attack while your opponent is forced to defend himself, but you can now also attack mid. That means that you have a 2/3 chance of landing another strike, this time a really damaging one. Of course, combos can't last forever, but I'll go into the mechanics that deal with that after I talk about something else.
And to be honest, I still haven't figured out what advantage countering an attack would give you. I'm still woring on that. It can't just go into the combo just like a successful opening strike, it has to have some difference, even if small.
After that, let's add some extra elements. Let's add something from its fighting game influence, a special bar. It works as expected, it builds up as you deal and take damage, and some skills use up a part of it. The actions I'll talk about from now on may have a cost associated, but I haven't gotten far enough to deal with that yet.
The second element we add that makes the whole thing come together is space. Your possible actions may change depending on how close you are to your opponent, and you can change your position with some actions as well.
For example, you can jump back to evade attacks. This is a very strong action that lets you evade attacks regardless of which section they cover and resets the fight. It has some drawbacks, though. If you use it too much, you may put yourself against a corner, which reduces your mobility and gives your opponent a significant offfensive advantage because of that. Or if you use it too close to the opponent, a particularly long reaching attack may catch you on the tail end of the jump.
Other things you may do are a charge attack that brings you closer to your opponent, a guard breaking attack, an attack that can be blocked regardless of the area blocked but beats other attacks, a particularly powerful combo attack that can be blocked in two ways, a shove... There's room for creativity. Magical and ranged attacks (throwing daggers?), as well as status effects, are not entirely out of the question, although I'm focusing on melee combat for now. (I'm particularly interested in how I could implement status in something like this.)
And as for combos, each strike in the combo, with maybe some rare exceptions, pushes the opponent back a bit, meaning that he'll end up out of reach of your strikes, forcing you to end the combo. This leaves some design space for combo finishers, skills that end the combo and reset the fight's state regardless of where the opponent is, which rewards you for knowing when your combos end and popping the finisher at the right time, instead of swinging wildly and being surprised when one of your attacks hits air. Also, obviously, pulls can be used to extend combos.
And you would only have a limited ammount of those special skills avaliable in a fight. There's a lot of room for customization by choosing the skills you want to pack. Want to overwhelm opponents with guard breaks? Perform long combos by chaining attacks with long reach and pulls? Play defensively by keeping the opponent away with pushes and occasionally striking when an opportunity presents itself? Fight with a counter based style, waiting for the opponent to strike so you can punish them for it? Just choose the right skills for the job! This could actualy be interesting with a multiplayer element!
But, of course, I am far away from having the coding skill necessary to make this, as awesome as it sounds. When I get to that stage, I think the best thing to do would be a short proof of concept game, with not much story. Just a simple game about a gladiator fighting his way up.
And, of course, nothing is set in stone. Anything I wrote about here is subject to change, of course. It's just a very rough idea now.
End wall of text.
I got the idea while thinking about what could make the final battle of what is probably going to be my second RPG, currently titled Knight's Oath, more satisfying. What began as a way to give the last phase of the final boss a gimmick to make it a duel between the hero and the BBEG slowly morphed into something way more complex, something that would have to be the main battle system of its game. And, as a battle system based on duels, it would have a party of one.
If I had to describe it shortly, it's what happens when a JRPG and a fighting game concieve a child. Much like its fighing game parent, it consists of several rock-paper-scissors type decisions done in sequence, but turn based instead of real time.
Picture two swordsmen facing each other. You have four options: attack high, attack low, block high, or block low. Your opponent chooses one of those four options as well, in a double blind scenario. From there, you have five possible outcomes:
- You both block. Nothing happens and the game state is reset.
- You both attack the same area. Your weapons clash and the game state is reset.
- You both attack, but choose different areas. You both take low damage and then the game state resets.
- One player attacks, and the second player blocks the wrong area. The defender takes low damage and the attacker gets to initiate a combo.
- One player attacks, and the defender blocks the attack. The defender gets to do a counterattack.
And why do the initial attacks all deal low damage? That is because the first blow is mostly to take the opponent off balance. See that thing about combos? That's where the real damage is! After landing the first strike, you continue to attack while your opponent is forced to defend himself, but you can now also attack mid. That means that you have a 2/3 chance of landing another strike, this time a really damaging one. Of course, combos can't last forever, but I'll go into the mechanics that deal with that after I talk about something else.
And to be honest, I still haven't figured out what advantage countering an attack would give you. I'm still woring on that. It can't just go into the combo just like a successful opening strike, it has to have some difference, even if small.
After that, let's add some extra elements. Let's add something from its fighting game influence, a special bar. It works as expected, it builds up as you deal and take damage, and some skills use up a part of it. The actions I'll talk about from now on may have a cost associated, but I haven't gotten far enough to deal with that yet.
The second element we add that makes the whole thing come together is space. Your possible actions may change depending on how close you are to your opponent, and you can change your position with some actions as well.
For example, you can jump back to evade attacks. This is a very strong action that lets you evade attacks regardless of which section they cover and resets the fight. It has some drawbacks, though. If you use it too much, you may put yourself against a corner, which reduces your mobility and gives your opponent a significant offfensive advantage because of that. Or if you use it too close to the opponent, a particularly long reaching attack may catch you on the tail end of the jump.
Other things you may do are a charge attack that brings you closer to your opponent, a guard breaking attack, an attack that can be blocked regardless of the area blocked but beats other attacks, a particularly powerful combo attack that can be blocked in two ways, a shove... There's room for creativity. Magical and ranged attacks (throwing daggers?), as well as status effects, are not entirely out of the question, although I'm focusing on melee combat for now. (I'm particularly interested in how I could implement status in something like this.)
And as for combos, each strike in the combo, with maybe some rare exceptions, pushes the opponent back a bit, meaning that he'll end up out of reach of your strikes, forcing you to end the combo. This leaves some design space for combo finishers, skills that end the combo and reset the fight's state regardless of where the opponent is, which rewards you for knowing when your combos end and popping the finisher at the right time, instead of swinging wildly and being surprised when one of your attacks hits air. Also, obviously, pulls can be used to extend combos.
And you would only have a limited ammount of those special skills avaliable in a fight. There's a lot of room for customization by choosing the skills you want to pack. Want to overwhelm opponents with guard breaks? Perform long combos by chaining attacks with long reach and pulls? Play defensively by keeping the opponent away with pushes and occasionally striking when an opportunity presents itself? Fight with a counter based style, waiting for the opponent to strike so you can punish them for it? Just choose the right skills for the job! This could actualy be interesting with a multiplayer element!
But, of course, I am far away from having the coding skill necessary to make this, as awesome as it sounds. When I get to that stage, I think the best thing to do would be a short proof of concept game, with not much story. Just a simple game about a gladiator fighting his way up.
And, of course, nothing is set in stone. Anything I wrote about here is subject to change, of course. It's just a very rough idea now.
End wall of text.
This is basically a turn-based Fighting game (regardless of the RPG elements). I made a few in game book form years ago.
The biggest problem right now is that there is no real advantage in defending, since it either results in a miss on both sides or in allowing the attacker to combo.
Unless the counter attacks would provide a substantial advantage, as in a daring make-or-break move, always attacking would be the only sensible option.
Battles are won by dealing damage, not by avoiding getting hit.
The biggest problem right now is that there is no real advantage in defending, since it either results in a miss on both sides or in allowing the attacker to combo.
Unless the counter attacks would provide a substantial advantage, as in a daring make-or-break move, always attacking would be the only sensible option.
Battles are won by dealing damage, not by avoiding getting hit.
author=Avee
The biggest problem right now is that there is no real advantage in defending, since it either results in a miss on both sides or in allowing the attacker to combo.
Unless the counter attacks would provide a substantial advantage, as in a daring make-or-break move, always attacking would be the only sensible option.
Battles are won by dealing damage, not by avoiding getting hit.
Exactly. That's my biggest problem. I need to make countering an attack something that is worth it and I still have no idea how to do it. As it is right now, even if I have countering the opening strike just start a combo, doing the exact same thing as a successful opening strike, attacking on the opening round still is the better option, just like you said.
If you attempt to counter the opening strike, these are the possible outcomes:
- 1/4 chance that you successfully counter the attack
- 2/4 chance that nothing happens
- 1/4 chance that you get hit
If you just attempt an opening strike, here's the outcomes:
- 1/4 chance that your attack gets blocked and countered
- 1/4 chance that you hit each other
- 1/4 chance that your weapons clash and nothing happens
- 1/4 chance that you successfully attack
It seems pretty balanced at first, but there are some problems with this. If you have an advantage in HP, you should never open up a fight by trying to counter, as one of the neutral outcomes is advantageous to you by virtue of you losing less health relative to your total when you exchange blows. There is actually an interesting mindgame element here since you know that your opponent is likely to attack if you're caught in the wrong end, but there is no appropriate response. The best play against an incoming attack is a counter, but even then, it only works half the time. Attacking forces a tie, which as I explained is actually good for your opponent. Even with the odds of success being the same for both options, attacking is the superior choice over countering the vast majority of the time.
And there's also the fact that there is no interaction at all when both players guard, which is a common enough occurence for it to be worrying.
Keeping it the way it is, it would need to be balanced so that countering is slightly better than attacking, but not so much that it becomes the default play and players just stand there doing nothing for ages. It's a scenario where you want the worst play to be the most commonly used. It's a balancing nightmare.
One other option is to remove the zone choice in the opening phase and introduce guard breaks as a standard action, so that attack<guard<break<attack. (This just so happens to be the base mechanic of battles in Fate/EXTRA) Not removing the area selection would either further imbalance the game into attack dominance, introduce even more tie scenarios, or have nonsensical matchups. (How would you explain that a low block beats a high guard break, or that a high guard break beats a low attack?)
Of course, we are discussing this in a bit of a vacuum. We are ignoring movement options and equippable skills. Perhaps movement can be the element necessary to work out this balance problem. And depending on your skill loadout, the dominant option in a fight differs.



















